Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
From Marginal Cases to Linked Oppressions: Reframing
the Conflict between the Autistic Pride and Animal Rights
Movements
Daniel Salomon1
Abstract
This paper examines the conflict between the autist pride movement and the animal
rights movement over Peter Singer’s use of the “Argument from Marginal Cases.” It
is written from the perspective of a person who is an autist and a committed animal
rights activist. This paper radically reframes the conflict using an approach which is
both non-dualistic and reconciliatory. A “linked oppressions” model builds solidarity
and fosters coexistence, thus bridging the divide between the disability and the animal
rights movements. A radical reframing of the conflict can lead to a possible truce, if
not constructive alliance building between these two disparate movements.
Introduction
Peter Singer and other activist-scholars have established the philosophical legitimacy
of discourse regarding animal ethics; thus, animal ethics can no longer be dismissed
as sentimentalism by the Western intellectual establishment (Best 2009; Linzey 2000,
2009; Webb 1998). Nonetheless, the framing of animal ethics needs to be critiqued; a
neurotypical bias remains implicit in the way animal ethics is typically framed, which
keeps intact and perpetuates speciesism. 2 Neurotypicalism privileges a form of
cognitive processing characteristic of peoples who have a neurotypical (non-autistic)
brain structure, while at least implicitly finding other forms of cognitive processing to
be inferior, such as those natural to autists and nonhuman animals. Specifically,
1 Daniel Salomon, OEF, 30 years old, is a high-functioning autist himself, with an MA in Research from Andover
Newton Theological School, a Graduate Certificate in Science and Religion from the Boston Theological Institute,
a BS in Liberal Studies from Salisbury University, formally Salisbury State University, with concentrations in
Biology, Environmental Studies, and Conflict Analysis/Dispute Resolution, and a Naturalist Certificate from the
Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies. Also, a professed member in the Order of Ecumenical Franciscans,
Salomon is the author of four self-published books which addresses environmental and animal issues. Two of
Salomon's books are available on Amazon.com Kindle Store, and the third, on Amazon.com. He can be contacted
at: sherrydsal@aol.com
2 There are many parallels between the autist critique of animal ethics and the feminist critique of animal ethics
especially with respect to intersections between patriarchy and neurotypicalism. Thus, both feminists and autists
question many of the same biases in animal ethics literature, either implicitly or explicitly. See Best’s article, listed
in bibliography, which independently addresses some of the neurotypical biases in critical animal studies literature,
without using the term neurotypicalism.
47
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
neurotypicalism privileges vermal reasoning (i.e. reasoning that relies heavily on the
brain’s vermis) over other ways of knowing, being, and experiencing.
According to neurology researchers, the defining difference 3 in brain structure
between autists and neurotypicals may lie in the development of the vermis in the
cerebellum (Courchene et al. 1988; Courchese et al. 2001; Belmonte et al. 2004;
Mitchell et al. 2009; Mostofsky et al. 2009). A fully functioning vermis cerebelli,
found in neurotypicals, allows neurotypicals to develop an “abstract concept of the
world” (Grandin 2005: 26). 4 Much animal ethics discourses precede based on the
unquestioned acceptance of this “abstract concept of the world” and that such an
“abstract concept of the world” is necessary to advance the animal liberation cause.
One possible reason is that autism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM IV) as a mental disorder, implying that the insights and
virtues of autists are suspect. The DSM IV also claims that autists have a “qualitative
impairment” in both social interaction and communication. The DSM IV model fails
to account for two realities: First, is that autistic characteristics may provide
advantages, strengths, and even virtues. Second, personality and character traits of
autists, especially those with Asperger’s and high-functioning autism, vary
significantly from the DSM IV model, with some individuals being significantly more
social and communicative than the classic stereotype of an autist.5 6
Both the autist and neurotypical ways of knowing, being, and experiencing have their
strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the autist approach is that while the vermis
is not as strong, this apparent neurological deficit enables autists to see each entity as
3 The word “difference” is used instead of “maldevelopment,” the actual words of one researcher quoted, to avoid
making a nonscientific value judgment when describing scientific evidence. The word “maldevelopment” judges
that some brains and nervous systems are better than others, which is non-scientific and demeaning to autists.
4 A disconnect remains between how neurological and behavioral approaches to studying the autism spectrum
relate to one another (Belmonte et. al), e.g. vermis differences (neurology research) versus frontal lobe differences
(behavioral, as in Grandin) as the defining brain difference between autists and neurotypicals. The purpose of this
paper, the author will contend that the neurological data is for all practical purposes consistent with behavioral data,
in terms of connecting relevant behavioral findings with relevant neurological findings. It also underscores the
strong neurological basis for autism.
5 For one autist’s argument that neurotypical diagnosticians oversimplify when contending that autists have a
relative lack of empathy, see “Some Thoughts About Empathy” by Jim Sinclair
(http://web.archieve.org/web/2008062500027/web.syr.edu/~jisincla/empathy.htm) 1988.
6 Boundy (2008) offers another critique of the medical definition of autism.
48
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
a separate reality, resulting in greater awareness of the details of the world-aroundthem (Grandin 2005: 26, 30-31, 50-52, and 293-297). Grandin (2005, 6-7,) contends
that nonhuman animals also have this same capability of seeing concrete reality with
limited conceptual bias. By contrast, neurotypicals miss precise details of the world
due to an “inattentional blindness,” in which sensory inputs are structured by “an
entire set of social-symbolic conventions, form, and expectations” divorced from
nature, but instead imbedded in human culture (Wolfe 2008: 113). In other words,
“inattentional blindness” produces a certain worldview and phenomenology, which is
culturally constructed, and thus open to critique.
For the purposes of this paper, neurotypicalism (Sinclair 1998) or vermal reasoning
can also be construed as conceptualism (McKim 1996; Lonergan, 1957 1971) which
is present in Hellenistic philosophy (Greaves et al. 1997; Lonergan 1957 1971) and
more recently in some parts of Enlightenment philosophy (Lonergan 1957 1971).
Vermal reasoning is internally generated logic (Grandin 2005; Houstan and Frith
2000; Rachels 1999) which by nature is consistent (Linzey 2009; Rachels 1999),
coherent (Linzey 2009; Rachels 1999), conceptually hierarchical (Lakoff 2003;
Johnson 2003), binary (Boole 1779-1848), dualistic (McKim 1996), abstract (Grandin
2005) (Nussbaum 2006), simplified (Grandin 2005), generalized (Grandin 2005),
homogenized (Grandin 2005), and artificially compartmentalized (Prince-Hughes
2004), developed devoid of experiential reality (Linzey 2009; Rachels 1999; Houstan
and Firth 2000). This privileging of vermal reasoning over other forms of reasoning
not only invalidates and makes suspect autist insights, but neurotypicalism also
invalidates and makes suspect animal intelligence.
The neurotypical bias can be removed from animal ethics discourse by focusing
critical attention on the lived experiences of nonhuman animals themselves. In other
words, neurotypicalism is fundamentally speciesist because neurotypicalism
conceptually both insulates and inoculates one from the lived reality and hence the
needs of nonhuman animals, making empathy for and meaningful improvement in the
quality of life for nonhuman animals difficult. A neurotypical approach to animal
ethics makes the correct usage of certain thought processes, ideologies, and
49
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
methodologies more important than how one actually treats nonhuman animals (Best
2009: 19-33; Webb 1998: 58-60,).7
One such example is the philosophical thought experiment known as the ‘Argument
from Marginal Cases’ (AMC) which has been effectively used by Singer and others
animal ethicists to provide a philosophical foundation for animal rights; nonetheless,
it retains a neurotypical bias toward the reasoning characteristic of neurotypical brain
structures (Singer 1999: 326-327). This argument rests on three incorrect assumptions
about people with mental disabilities: First, infants and people with mental disabilities
lack understanding (Singer 1999: 326). Second, vermally rational life is more
valuable than non-vermally rational life (Singer 1999: 326). Third, infants and those
with mental disabilities are incapable of reciprocity (Singer 1999: 328). By using the
AMC to frame the cause of animal liberation, Singer privileges vermal reasoning over
other forms of reasoning, such as visual reasoning (Grandin 2005: 26), which allows
these other classes of beings to understand, to reason, and even to reciprocate, albeit
differently. Singer’s use of the AMC thus keep intact the speciesist assumption that
the rational capacities of neurotypical 8 humans beings is the standard by which
nonhuman animals are judged and given moral consideration (de Waal 1996;
Armstrong and Botlzer 2004, 312).
Autists have been oppressed by many of the same persons and institutions as
nonhuman animals. For example, biomedicine has a history of applying Skinner-like
animal experiments in the development of invasive and sometimes traumatic
behavioral modification programs for autistic children (Grandin 2005: 13). Autists
know firsthand what it feels like to be treated like a nonhuman animal; to have their
full capacities ignored, devalued, dismissed, trivialized, marginalized; and to have
their subsequent needs and wants not addressed or taken seriously. Thus, this paper
contends that autists are uniquely positioned to contribute constructively to the cause
of animal liberation. Autists can articulate what is like to be treated like a nonhuman
animal, can articulate what it is like to be a non-neurotypical (a category which
7 These are more feminine ways of knowing, too.
8 Singer (e.g., 326) uses the word “normal” multiple times in his work.
50
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
encompasses nonhuman animals as well), are able to profoundly empathize with the
plight and needs of nonhuman animals, and can provide unique insights into animal
intelligence.
The ‘Argument from Marginal Cases’
The primary foundation of the contemporary ‘Argument from Marginal Cases’ as
used in animal ethics comes from utilitarianism, an Enlightenment philosophy which
can be traced back to the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. A working definition of
utilitarianism is “that the morally right action is the action that produces the most
good” (Driver 2009). Singer (1999: 324-325,) attempts to answer Bentham’s question
about the moral standing of non-human animals: “the question is not, Can they reason?
Nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” (Bentham 1988: 26). Singer (1999: 327)
contends that the fact that non-human animals can suffer is a sufficient basis for
giving non-human animals moral consideration. Nonetheless, by arguing that only
rational beings can suffer, Singer (1999: 326) keeps intact the notion that reason is an
important criterion for giving non-human beings moral consideration.
Bentham (1988: 26) employs the AMC when writing: “But a full grown horse or dog
is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an
infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old.” Bentham goes on to say that
suffering is the most important criteria for giving a being moral consideration. Singer
picks up on this speculation, synergizing it with what Bentham dismisses as a less
important ethical criterion: capacity for reason. Singer (1999: 326, 328-329) then
proceeds to use Bentham’s comparison between certain non-human animals and
newborn human infants, expanding it to include those with mental disabilities and
arguing that certain non-human animals are more rational than certain classes of
human beings. Other animal ethicists, such as Tom Regan (1983, 2006), have also
adapted the AMC to their own work.
51
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
The AMC has both strong and weak forms (Dombrowski 1997: 179-181). Singer
(1999: 326, 327,), Regan (1983: 315, 316,),9 Dombrowski (1997, 3-4, 189-193) and
Patton (1988: 231-235,) subscribe to the strong form, which contends that humanists
need to defend “why marginal cases have rights” (Dombrowski 1997: 179). (Singer
would say “moral consideration” since, as a strict utilitarian, he is ideologically
opposed to rights.)10 Wolfe (2009: 121-123), Linzey (2009: 5, 30-37, 151-155, 165167), and Nussbaum (2006: 359-366,) subscribe to its weak form, which contends that
“[if] marginal cases [can] have rights, we can then argue that animals, too, [can] have
rights” (Dombrowski 1997: 179).
Figure 1: Differences between Strong and Weak versions of AMC
Strong AMC
Weak AMC
Compare Argues From Marginal Cases, Argues From Marginal Cases,
e.g., infants and those with e.g., infants and those with
mental disabilities.
Contrast
mental disabilities.
Either/Or, Dualistic, Hierarchical, Both/And, Holistic, Balanced,
To Choose Between, e.g., peoples To Choose Both, e.g., peoples
with mental disabilities or certain with mental disabilities and
nonhuman animals.
certain nonhuman animals.
Linzey and Nussbaum critique the strong form of the AMC. Linzey (2009, 154-155)
disagrees with Singer on three points. First, Singer does not account for the history of
the animal movements, which has seen the animal rights cause and the children rights
cause as inseparable. Second, Singer pits human rights against animal rights, which
provides bad witness to a highly speciesist society that sees animal rights in
opposition to human rights. Third, Singer grants nonhuman animals moral
consideration based on their demonstrating a certain standard of self-awareness—a
criterion that many nonhuman animals cannot meet. Thus, rejecting as immoral any
9 The author notes Dombroski’s observation that there are subtle differences between Singer’s and Regan’s use of
the AMC. The author still classifies Singer and Regan together in terms of the “strong” position, which is
consistent with Dombrowski’s observations, while acknowledging that both philosophers do not recognize the
intrinsic value of peoples with mental disabilities.
10 Unlike the others, Patton (233) acknowledges the gifts of some disabilities.
52
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
argument asserting the tyranny of the strong over those who lack certain morally
irrelevant capacities, Linzey argues for a weaker version of the AMC. Beings that
lack certain capacities—beings such as nonhuman animals, infants, and children, who
are at the mercy of the strong—must be given special moral consideration on just
these same grounds.
Nussbaum’s critique of the AMC is that it does not recognize legitimate ontological
differences between those with mental disabilities and nonhuman animals. Most
importantly, those with mental disabilities are dependent on human society for their
survival and subsequent flourishing, while nonhuman animals—with the exception of
those under human dominion, e.g., on factory farms—are not. In other words,
nonhuman animals, in natural settings, would be able to rely on other members of
their species to help them survive and flourish. Those with mental disabilities, if
exiled from the rest of human society, have nowhere else to go. Thus, Nussbaum
(2006: 359-366) argues, human society has moral obligations to those with mental
disabilities.
Under the force of these two critiques, the strong form of the AMC is an inadequate
basis for framing animal liberation. It can be argued that the weak form of the AMC is
also inadequate, and for this we turn to the voices of autists (and caregivers)
themselves. These voices provide additional critiques of the strong form, as well as
introducing a critique of the weak form.
‘Marginal Cases’ Create Marginalized Peoples
Autists (part of the mostly grassroots online, autist pride movement, usually those
with high functioning autism and Asperger’s, see www.wrongplanet.net for an
example, and Boundy [2008] and Sinclair [1988] for more analysis) and their
caregivers (include those who have low-functioning autism) object to the ‘Argument
from Marginal Cases’ in both its strong and weak forms (e.g., Ari Ne-eman 2008).
Both forms have a stigmatizing history and work from incorrect assumptions about
the nature of the autism spectrum. Animal ethics scholars employing the AMC make
53
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
negative value judgments, not only about autism itself but also about the worth of
persons who fit this category of beings. These judgments are based on assumptions
that do not hold empirically, as more autists and others with developmental
disabilities reveal their inner lives, including Temple Grandin, Dawn Prince-Hughes,
Donna Williams, and Steven Shore. These individuals reveal that autists have vibrant,
though different, inner lives.
Before animal ethicists employed the AMC, others used a similar argument to deny
rights to certain people because of a perceived lack of humanity. For example, Hugh
Blair, a Scottish nobleman of the eighteenth century, was denied proclamation of his
marriage because the Church of Scotland believed he was “stupid” (Houston and Frith
2000:45). These two contemporary scholars—a psychologist and a historian—
contend Blair had autism. More recent examples include the programs to euthanize or
sterilize people with disabilities. A quarter million people with disabilities were
murdered during the Holocaust, through gassing, even starvation, even weeks after the
war ended in Germany. In United States, programs involving sterilization of
individuals with disabilities, which were even widespread as late as the 1970s.
(Disability Social History Project) At the time of writing, the United States Congress
is debating whether or not to pass legislation which would restrict harmful restraining
and seclusion of children in public schools. This proposed legislation responds to
allegations from a government report which examined ten cases, involving children
with disabilities, which involved both psychological and physical abuse, which
required both civil and criminal legal action. One case even involved the death of a 7year-old-girl. (Disability Scoop 2009, 2010) Examples like this suggest too many in
the autist community that the AMC in its strong form is fundamentally oppressive.
Contrary to Singer, Shore (2004: 58), who has Asperger’s, argues one should not
assume that “marginal cases” do not have the “same needs, wants and potential for a
fulfilling life as everyone else.” The ideology of identifying certain people as
“marginal cases” leads to the stigmatization of entire groups of people.
11 For a discussion and critique of the social science concept of stigmatization in relationship to the question of
disability see Nancy Eisland, The Disabled God, 57-66.
54
11
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Stigmatization, in turn, can lead to discrimination, persecution, oppression, bigotry,
and, in its most extreme cases, genocide as the above examples have demonstrated.
Some autists contend that the weak form of the AMC is also problematic because it
does not honor the gifts and virtues which one’s so-called “disability” brings (Neeman
2008; Boundy 2009). The weak form can be used to justify discrimination and
exclusion out-of-hand because autists are seen as liabilities rather than assets to an
organization, e.g., prospective employers. In addition, the weak form can be used to
justify “curing” or “fixing” autists, rather than accepting them the way they are.
Finally, while some animal ethicists liken autists to nonhuman animals, viewing them
as ‘moral patients’ (incapable of conscious moral action) rather than ‘moral agents’
(Regan 2004, 314), autists see themselves as full human beings who are moral agents,
though perhaps in ways that differ from neurotypicals. Nonetheless, the autist
objection to the contentions of Singer-esque animal ethics is not based in bigotry
toward nonhuman animals, but in a need to defend their identity and existence in the
context of an unsympathetic neurotypical society (Ari Ne-eman 2008).
Why Does Animal Ethics Still Remain So Insular?
Despite new evidence demonstrating that autists and others with intellectual
disabilities are full human beings, some animal ethicists continue to defend the AMC
in both its strong and weak forms (DeGraza 2006, 40-41; Linzey 2009 5, 30-37, 151155, 165-167; Matheny 2006, 18-19; Regan 2006, 13; Singer 2006). The AMC is also
implicit in activist literature, as indicated by several recent PETA campaigns,
including “Milk Causes Autism” (PETA 2009b) and “Fishing Hurts” (PETA 2009a).
In the latter campaign, a sub-heading—“PCBs Will Make You Stupid”—alluded to
the connection between PCB consumption in fish and an increase in intellectual
disabilities. Another example is drawn from the AskCarla.com column (Ask Carla
2009) in which Carla gives a loaded and judgmental interpretation, which is far from
objective or factual, about the worth of peoples with developmental disabilities:
“There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware,
communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a
chimpanzee, compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental
55
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
disability, for example.” When one holds onto an argument, despite significant
contrary evidence, it is no longer a matter of ignorance; it is a matter of ideology
based in disinformation (Lakoff 2004). Neurotypicalism is such an ideology, indicated
by the way use of the AMC transforms the animal rights movement from a lifeaffirming movement into a life-denying movement, in the sense that certain beings are
now sometimes excluded.
Drawing on the analysis presented by Wolfe, I offer four hypotheses for the continued
support of the AMC. First, disability studies literature has historically not addressed
the relationship between disability studies and animal studies, making it
fundamentally anthropocentric and speciesist from the animal ethicist’s point-of-view.
This is evident in Wolfe’s comment that a recent conference on disability studies
lacked any paper referencing “the relationship between disability and trans-species
affinity” (Wolfe 2009: 119-121). Second, animal ethicists perceive that nonhuman
animals are being used by autists and others with disabilities as a ticket to a
neurotypical, ablest society, with the nonhuman animals not getting sufficient
libratory benefits in return. On this point, consider Wolfe’s (2009: 122) discussion of
the animal rights movement’s objections to Temple Grandin’s advocacy for welfare
instead of rights. Third, assuming limited resources, compassion, and goodwill, there
is the identity politics factor of “my constituents are more marginalized and
unrecognized than yours” (Wolfe 2009: 121). Although, Wolfe does not endorse this
position, many other animal ethicists and activists do. Fourth and finally, animal
ethicists still fundamentally contend that autists and others with disabilities are
“useless,” that they cannot reciprocate, and that they are moral patients who are
completely dependent on moral agents for their survival (Wolfe 2009: 122-123).
These sentiments, as revealed by Wolfe, continue to pervade animal ethics and
activism.
These objections to autist animal ethics are not cogent for a number of reasons. First,
connections can be made between disability studies and animal studies. For example,
Wolfe talks about the shift in the disability movement from what he calls
“fetishization of agency,” which is a more civil rights and legalistic approach, to an
awareness by some people in the movement that “we now ‘need to find a new way of
talking about the place of disabled people in the universe and to find the place of
56
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
disability in some universal,’” which is a more cosmological and anthropological
approach (Wolfe 2009: 119-120). This cosmological-anthropological approach can
open up room to encompass the nonhuman world because this approach is more
outward than inward, more communitarian than individualistic, and yet it does not
deny ecological individualism—the value of each individual animal, whether human
or nonhuman.
Second, nonhuman animals do in fact get significant libratory benefits from autists
reaching out to animalkind. Consider Dawn Prince-Hughes’s lifework with gorillas;
her work might not have happened, if she were not an autist. I am another example. I
identify myself as an animal rights activist and have published books which
constructively address and sympathetically engage animal issues. I am a vegetarian,
have recently started an animal ministry with www.allcreatures.org, and have been
militantly against hunting for population control and the ethical hunting position since
I was a youth. I do not attend circuses, rodeos, or bullfights; I avoid wearing animal
products when possible; and I do not hunt, fish, or trap. My practices reflect not only
my principles, but also a fundamental difference in my mindset: I do not get pleasure
from these activities. Unquestioningly, nonhuman animals receive at least some
libratory benefits from my existence.
The third issue, the identity politics argument, implicitly assumes that there are
“deserving and undeserving poor,” revealing an acceptance of the implicit paternalism
of the oppressor, and holding that some group’s issues are categorically more
important than others, e.g., consider the conflicts between African-Americans and
Latinos, between illegal and legal immigrants, between earlier and newer immigrants,
and between the working poor and those on welfare. This argument quantifies
suffering, e.g., physical suffering is greater suffering than psychological suffering or
more of this group died in a genocide than that group, rather than embracing
everyone’s suffering as legitimate, e.g., both physical and psychological suffering
both qualifies as suffering, or the fact that members of any group died in a genocide is
a serious justice problem. It is fundamentally dualistic, e.g., one group getting justice,
while another does not. This line of thinking also enables oppressors to get two or
more oppressed groups fighting among themselves, as the above examples imply,
rather than uniting against their common oppressor, e.g., classism, xenophobia,
57
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
poverty, unjust barriers, and unlivable wages. Also, it assumes a scarcity of resources,
compassion, and good-will that is available to help the marginalized, e.g., the
unquestioned paradigm in economics of a presumed scarcity or an unquestioned
cynicism in the power for individuals and societies to change. The alternative is to
negotiate with the oppressors to more equitably distribute goods and services, e.g.,
activism and moral suasion, now disproportionately controlled by the dominant group
in society, e.g., neurotypical, speciesist power holders.
Finally, it has already been shown that the fourth argument, that autists and others
with disabilities are “useless” and lack moral agency, is contrary to fact. Grandin is an
autist, and also a Ph.D. professor of animal science at Colorado State University, who
has published over three hundred scientific papers as of 2005, gives thirty-five
lectures on animal management a year, another twenty-five on autism per year, and
half the cattle in the United States are handled in more benign slaughter systems she
has designed (Grandin 2005: 7).12 Sinclair, another autist activist, counters the moral
patient argument, by arguing that in his struggle toward acquiring “certain expressive
and receptive communication skills, possibly including some basic instincts that make
communication a natural process for most people, combined with any cognitive or
perceptual differences” (Sinclair 1988: 1) takes the posture of “I don’t mind that I
have to do this work…I am interested in learning about how people’s minds
work…But I do mind when in spite of so much effort I still miss cues, and someone
who has much better inherent communication ability than I do but has not even taken
a close enough look at my perspective to notice the enormity of the chasm between us
tells me that my failure to understand is because I lack ‘empathy.’ If I know that I do
not understand people and I devote all this energy and effort to figuring them out, do I
have more or less empathy than people who not only do not understand, but who do
12 A benign slaughter system is not necessarily the logical conclusion of autist animal ethics, nor is Grandin’s
welfare approach unanimously defended by all in the autist community. For example, Sinclair who is also an autist
and a vegan, argues forcefully against Grandin’s approach, instead arguing for a hard-line animal liberationist
position, in his short essay, “If you love something, you don’t kill it”
http://web.archive.org,/web/20080330071836/web.syr.edu/~jisincla/killing.htm, 1998.
Note also that Grandin does not have a monopoly on confusing love with killing, e.g., Just War Theory and Ethical
Hunting. Both examples are nonautistic in origin. This illustrates autist productivity and contributions; it does not
imply Grandin’s approach is a universally accepted autist animal ethic.
58
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
not even notice that they do not understand me?” (Sinclair 1988: 2-3) Sinclair is an
example of an autist, making conscious moral decisions in his interactions with other
people, thus clearly meeting Regan’s definition of a moral agent, while Grandin is just
one of many autist examples as productive, contributing members of society. Thus the
animal ethics argument that non-neurotypicals are useless moral patients is not cogent.
There is a much more persuasive way of framing animal ethics, which is also
nonanthropocentric and non-speciesist, as well as mutually liberating, uniting, and
empowering to both autists and nonhuman animals.
The Linked Oppression Model—Its Power and Promise
Steven-Bouma Prediger describes “linked oppressions” as it relates to both the
ecofeminist argument and the ecojustice argument: “One might call [it] the fourth
argument [in his typology for environmentalism] ‘poor and oppressed unite’ since it
posits a link between various forms of oppression” (Prediger 2001: 168). Prediger
(2001:168-169) continues, “Given that sexism and racism and the exploitation of the
earth are connected, concern for one should entail concern for the others. The ecology
movement and the various movements for human liberation, which have for too long
been separate and at times antagonistic projects, must see themselves as allies in a
common quest. There is, happily, growing recognition of this fact.”
I propose a variation of the linked oppression model, namely that there is a correlation
between how autists are treated by neurotypical society and how neurotypical society,
as a whole, treats nonhuman animals, and that the causes of autist pride and animal
liberation are intricately linked, interdependent on one another. Both oppressions have
the same primary cause: the ideology of neurotypicalism. When those without a fully
functioning vermis, including autists and nonhuman animals, do not conform to the
wishes of neurotypical society, neurotypical society starts to “interfere with, censor,
and control” (Houston and Frith 2000: 43) those understandings or behaviors which
do not conform to neurotypical standards or desires.
59
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
This model is consistent with reality and it helps resolve the conflict between animal
rights and disability rights which is manifested in some religious, ethical, and public
policy debates. It also has the power to break down another powerful false dualism:
the choice between preserving human dignity at all costs and giving the nonhuman
world significant moral consideration. This is a false choice, between being for Peter
Singer’s “argument for marginal cases” or being for Pope John Paul’s “dignity of
man” argument. Each of these two approaches is inadequate.
Singer’s use of the AMC has already been dealt with. The other extreme is just as
destructive and must also be rejected by autists and other peoples with disabilities.
The “dignity of man argument” espoused by people like Pope John Paul II holds that
the unique value of human beings must be preserved at all costs, in order to prevent
such practices as abortion and euthanasia. The dogmatic contention that humans are
both unique and superior forces Singer and others to embrace the AMC in an attempt
to deconstruct specieism.
The animal rights and the disability movements need a framework and strategy that
draws on a synthesis of the thesis and antithesis of the “dignity of man” argument and
the
argument
from
“marginal
cases.”
Both
extremes
are
harmful
and
counterproductive. The AMC is fundamentally oppressive to autists, while the
“dignity of man” argument is fundamentally oppressive to nonhuman animals. Both
positions are fundamentally inadequate. Yet, these two positions are also
fundamentally true. There is something intrinsically valuable about all human life.
And, it is equally true that there is something intrinsically valuable about nonhuman
life. In essence, what needs to be preserved at all costs is the dignity of all life, human
and nonhuman. Once it is recognized that choosing between the rights of nonhuman
animals and the rights of persons with disabilities is a false dichotomy, it is possible to
see that both groups are oppressed because they are not neurotypical. To this we turn.
The Autist-Animal Connection
A fully functioning vermis does not make a neurotypical person superior to autists
and nonhuman animals. As the author has demonstrated, the autist mind has its own
60
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
gifts and virtues. Yet, neurotypicals believe that their fully functioning vermis makes
them superior to and worthy of the conquest of all others who do not conform or
measure up. Let’s look at how this oppressive dynamic plays out, building a profile of
the harmful effects of neurotypical society.
First, neurotypical society sees autists and nonhuman animals as peripheral in terms
of social justice (Houston and Frith 2000). Autists and nonhuman animals are
considered by neurotypical society to be the “undeserving poor,” versus homosexuals,
women, the economic poor, or African-Americans, “the real poor,” which are
considered legitimate, because they demand less and are considered more like the
dominant society (Johnson). Moreover, if the autist struggle for justice is addressed at
all, it is oftentimes as a tacked-on issue appealing to people’s self-interests, whether in
the form of “segregationist charity” (Eisland 1994: 73-75) for autists and others with
disabilities or “compassion” (Nussbaum 2006: 2, 325) for nonhuman animals.
Second, neurotypical society sees autists and nonhuman animals as expendable
(Houston and Frith 2000). If autists or nonhuman animals get in the way of the
neurotypical agenda, they are sacrificed to the common good of neurotypical society.
If he or she is disruptive, an autist is expelled from a community, such as when an
elementary school teacher in Florida, disciplined a troublesome five-year-old who
was in the process of being diagnosed with Asperger’s, by letting all his fellow
students vote him out of the class, as well as publicly chastising and humiliating him
(Wixon 2008). If he or she is found to be a nuisance, a nonhuman animal is killed,
such as the standard policy of wildlife managers of addressing overpopulated and
invasive species problems through hunting and other methods of eradication, as has
been employed to deal with white tailed deer, resident Canada geese, or nutria
problems. Even reintroduced wild wolves are not above being eradicated, even
through they are endangered.
Third, neurotypical society patronizes and dominates autists and nonhuman animals
(Houston and Frith 2000). Neurotypical society looks down on autists and nonhuman
animals and does not treat them as equals. For example, a dog is seen as cute and
made obedient. An autist is treated like a little child, even when a full adult.
61
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Fourth, neurotypical society expects autists and nonhuman animals to conform to
neurotypical sentiments and standards set by neurotypical society (Houston and Frith
2000). Nonhuman animals are expected to not be a nuisance. Autists are expected to
become “normal.”
Fifth, neurotypical society punishes autists and nonhuman animals when they do not
conform (Houston and Frith 2000). Animals are euthanized when they are seen as a
threat to neurotypical society. Autists are subjected to powerful psychotropic
medications and traumatic behavior modification training, in efforts to get them to
conform (Diament 2009, 2010).
Sixth, neurotypical society oppresses autists and nonhuman animals by putting them
into situations in which they are incapable of properly defending themselves, or even
properly handling themselves, thereby causing them to perform poorly at best
(Houston and Frith 2000). For example, last year a pet chimp became violent under
stress, because he ingested wine and medicine. Keeping the chimp as a poorly
maintained pet, resulted in the chimp being drugged; neurotypical society then set-up
a normally compassionate police officer to fatally shoot the chimp in self-defense, and
to save the life of the owner (Wilson 2010). In the past, I have been denied support
which would have helped me to succeed. When I did not do well, despite much effort,
institutions severely punished me. For example, a doctoral program I attended for one
year would have been successful if I had received the accommodation of a reduced
course load, which was the recommendation of Disability Services, but was
departmentally discouraged by the program. Because I was discouraged from taking a
reduced course-load, I did not make the necessary grades to stay in the program, and
was asked to leave.
Seventh, neurotypical society feels justified in violating the rights of autists and
nonhuman animals with impunity. Because neurotypical society conceptualizes the
autist and nonhuman animal as cognitively inferior to the neurotypical, neurotypical
society believes that they cannot handle these rights (Houston and Frith 2000).
62
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Eighth, neurotypical society privileges neurotypical ways of knowing and being over
autist and nonhuman animal ways of knowing and being (Houston and Frith 2000).
Nonhuman animals are seen as inferior. Autists are seen as savants.
Ninth, neurotypical society is suspicious of rational or intelligent behavior in autists
and nonhuman animals (Houston and Frith 2000). Perceived rational or intelligent
behavior in nonhuman animals is dismissed as being anthropomorphic. Perceived
rational or intelligent behavior in autists is dismissed as unbelievable.
Tenth, neurotypical society is suspicious of and threatened by the special relationship
autists have with nonhuman animals, which serves as a prophetic witness against the
anthropocentrism and speciesism which dominates Western culture (Houston and
Frith 2000). For example, I have been targeted repeatedly because of my views on
nonhuman animals. In Boy Scouts, the children used to tease me about my interest in
birdwatching. Even today, I continue to feel like a target because of my beliefs about
nonhuman animals. While recognizing that members of other groups are also bullied,
e.g., homosexuals, in this case, I am convinced that I was bullied because I was an
autist. Neurotypical children, who are also sensitive to animals and animal issues,
have the advantage of a certain set of social skills to navigate through a bullying
situation, which often involves silence in certain situations. Autists do not have these
skills, or are in the process of developing them and oftentimes feels uncomfortable
lying or being less than authentic. This is corroborated by statistical evidence. Surveys
in 2002 and 2009 corroborate that incidents of bullying in the autism community were
in the 90% range in 2002 and dropped only four percent in eight years, despite
increased education, consciousness, and knowledge of the autism spectrum in the last
decade. The 2009 study also reported lack of responsiveness to parent complaints by
school officials (Little 2002; The Boston Herald 2009)
Finally, neurotypical society bullies and intimidates autists and nonhuman animals
when an autist or a nonhuman animal engages in his or her natural behaviors
(Houston and Frith 2000). Autists are mercilessly bullied in school, and even into
adulthood. I can easily become a target, and be repeatedly revictimized, whenever I
engage in my natural behaviors as an autist. This is often sanctioned by neurotypical
society through unresponsive teachers and administrators and unsympathetic social
63
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
institutions. Nonhuman animals are also bullied though more intensely physically
violent, oftentimes lethal, means, as a result of neurotypical society’s propensity to
sanction the practices of sport hunting, recreational fishing, bullfighting, and rodeos.
Bullying of autists is usually emotional, although not always, e.g., also can include
beatings (Little 2002). Bullying of nonhuman animals is usually physical, although
not always. For example, when a little girl chases pigeons in the park, the same
underlying mentality is at work. The purpose of bullying--- whether sports hunting or
playground teasing --- is to systematically and radically exclude a certain class of
beings from the mainstream of human society, with the goal of dominating these
beings, thereby giving them an inferior social status. Bullying of autists and
nonhuman animals are similar in that both are considered accepted practices to vent
aggression, domination, and violent urges, because both classes of beings are
considered other and inferior.13 (Johnson 2003)
As I have demonstrated in the above profile, neurotypicals have behavioral problems
that impact other persons and beings, just as neurotypicals claim autist and nonhuman
animal behavioral problems impact neurotypicals. Now, we will look briefly at some
objections to this framework.
Practical Implications of the Linked Oppression Model
In advocating and defending this version of linked oppressions, I have received three
main objections: that I stereotype neurotypicals (Sinclair, personal conversation), that
I scapegoat neurotypicals (Sinclair, personal communication) and that I invalidate the
neurotypical perspective (Boyle, personal communication). With respect to the first
objection, it is important to make clear a distinction between individual persons who
happen to be neurotypical and neurotypicalism, which is a worldview or ideology
held by neurotypical society as a whole, and which informs collective neurotypical
behavior, cultural assumptions, and institutional structures (Boundy 2008). Not all
neurotypical individuals subscribe to this worldview in its entirety (Boundy 2008).
13 Generalized principles are derived from Houston and Frith, although, in most cases, Houston and Frith did not
apply their analysis to nonhuman animals. See Linzey (2009: 87-88), “Hunting as anti-social behavior,” for an
example of a correlation between bullying in children, animal cruelty, and hunting.
64
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Some neurotypicals are becoming increasing sensitive to autist oppression and pride
(Boundy 2008). Some neurotypicals are beginning to question the legitimacy of
anthropocentrism and speciesism, such as Singer, Regan, Rachels and Linzey, and
even the primacy of vermal reasoning itself (Boundy 2008). Nonetheless, by the mere
fact that neurotypicals are the ruling majority, every neurotypical to one degree or
another has bought into, benefits from, and is validated by at least part of the
neurotypical worldview (Boundy 2008; (Sinclair 1988 1998; Diament 2009 2010;
Little 2002; Johnson 2003; Disability Social History Project). In other words,
neurotypicalism informs individual neurotypical’s social location, sense of social
privilege, and experiences of reality much in the same way race, gender, or sexual
orientation does (Boundy 2008; Sinclair 1988 1998; Diament 2009 2010; Little 2002;
Johnson 2003; Disability Social History Project). This model recognizes, consistent
with scholarship in sociology, that individuals behave collectively as part of a given
society and social arrangement (see Appelbaum and Chambliss [1997], for an
introduction to the sociology perspective). Individuals are, in part, “socially
produced” (Cipollo, university sociology lectures).
With respect to the objection about scapegoating neurotypicals, I respond with
recognition that neurotypicals are not the only ones capable of doing wrong or doing
evil. Autists can and do wrong things, even evil things, to nonhuman animals. But the
point of this model is that autists are not to blame for their own oppression. Nor are
they inherently disabled or diseased. Nor is autism inherently psycho-pathological or
socio-pathological, with neurotypicalism being the norm for determining a person’s
abilities, health, or functioning. The author forcefully affirms that autists have a right
to exist in this world, and to be included in the world, as much as neurotypicals do,
and that we have unique gifts and talents, which can contribute to human society and
the nonhuman world in ways at which neurotypicals have not been completely
successful. This is in radical opposition to the prejudgment that peoples on the
spectrum are “dead weight,” distracting attention away from animal liberation. In fact,
this is a radical affirmation that autists are not “marginal” to the animal liberation
cause. We have a function in the “cosmos,” as well as intrinsic value as individuals.
This model is a radical deconstruction of the notion that what is considered by
neurotypical society to be “normal” are the way things should be, or that such
conceptions of the “normal” even fully take into account what actually “is.” In other
65
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
words, this analysis provides a “serious and radical critique” of “conformity” and a
revolutionary affirmation of life, in all its myriad of forms. It forcefully affirms the
value of different nervous systems, whether human or nonhuman.
Finally, I do not invalidate neurotypicals. In fact, I contend that autists are
interdependent (not dependent) on neurotypicals and neurotypical society.
Neurotypicals can bring the following to the table: methods for reducing interpersonal
conflicts; a system of accountability for harmful autist behaviors; recognition that the
human body is a valued part of the Natural World; scientific and philosophical
reasoning; measures to reduce anxiety, fear, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors in
the autist; and spiritual, ethical, and scientific formation for the autist, in terms of
cultivating their sensibilities toward nonhuman animals. According to this model,
neurotypicals are definitely welcomed at the autist table; they just need to meet autists
and nonhuman animals halfway.
Conclusion
Autists and nonhuman animals share a common plight at the hands of neurotypicalism,
an ideology that privileges vermal reasoning. Consequently, autist activists and
animal liberationists must unite or at least reach a truce. This does not mean that
PETA and other animal groups need to be a social service agency for autists and
others with disabilities. PETA and the various animal movements can focus on giving
nonhuman animals the best defense against speciesism and institutionalized animal
cruelty possible, because these groups have precious little funding, resources,
sympathy, and positive media access. Nor do autists pride groups and individual
autists need to agree with PETA and other animal groups on every issue or strategy.
Autists and the autist community should be free to develop their own positions and
strategies, for addressing animal issues that provide an original, unique, thoughtful,
important, and necessary, critique, ethic, strategy, and vision for animal liberation. So
therefore, both the autist pride movements and the animal liberationist movement
need to stop attacking and disrespecting out-of-hand each other’s positions, strategies,
motives, and ontological foundations, especially the employment of ad hominim
arguments as rhetorical devices. Both parties need to recognize that the plight of
66
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
autists and the plight of nonhuman animals are fundamentally linked, and that both
movements (autist pride and animal liberation) are fighting the same oppressor
(neurotypicalism) and working toward the same goal of liberating the oppressed in a
society which is fundamentally neurocentric, with each of the two movements
offering unique gifts in their quest to ameliorate this injustice. (Bouma-Prediger 2001)
Such a view neither stereotypes nor scapegoats neurotypicals, but simply points out
the benefits neurotypical individuals receive from society’s present structure.
Neurotypicals and autists alike bring complementary gifts to the table. The conflict
between autists and animal liberationists is completely unnecessary, alienating a
group of people who do not need to be alienated, and who can be of service to the
animal liberation cause.
Certain sectors of the animal movements alienating a group of people, who do not
need to be alienated, is both counterproductive and undermining to the animal
liberation strategy. Most certainly, the animal rights movement, scapegoating an
oppressed group of people, who have a predisposition toward being sympathetic, even
empathic, toward nonhuman animals, is especially undermining and degrading to both
parties. Yet, when certain peoples and groups in the animal movement remain insular
to a neurologically chauvinistic strategy, autist individuals and groups will continue to
feel compelled to make negative comments about the animal rights movement online,
hurting the animal liberation cause in the process.
Whether one is arguing the AMC or Linked Oppressions, it is important to realize,
that these arguments are merely “means to an end,” strategies toward our collective
goal of animal liberation, whatever that vision looks like in theory and practice,
depending on the vision of the individual or group involved. We all need to keep what
is in the best interest for animals in mind, not becoming insular to certain strategies or
arguments, particularly when they loss integrity and persuasiveness, starting to
undermine the credibility of the movement in the process, making it difficult to recruit
much needed allies, because the target groups finds the framing of animal rights,
repulsive and offensive. We need to be both pragmatic and strategic, while retaining
our highest ideals, for this endeavor to be fruitful, accomplishing our intended goalthe actualization of animal liberation.
67
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
References
Appelbaum, R. and Chambliss W., (1997), Sociology-a brief introduction, Longman,
New York.
Aristotle. (1976 1989) “Animals and Slavery,” in Regan, T., Singer, P., (eds.), Animal
Rights and Human Obligations-Second Edition, Prentice Hall Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 4-5.
Armstrong S., Botzler R., (Eds.) (2004), Environmental Studies: divergence and
convergence-Third Addition, McGraw Hill, Boston, pp. 312.
AskCarla.com column, PETA
(http://www.ask.carla.com/answers.com/answers.asp?QuestiondanswerID=27
7).
Belmonte, M., Allen G., Beckel-Mitchener, A. Boulanger, L. Carper, R. and Webb, S.
(October 20, 2004), “Autism and Abnormal Development of Brain
Connectivity” The Journal of Neuroscience,
http://www.lneurosci.org/cgi/content/full.24/42/9228.
Bentham, J. (1976 1989) “A Utilitarian View” in Regan, T., Singer, P., (eds.), Animal
Rights and Human Obligations-Second Edition, Prentice Hall Englewood
Cliffs, pp. 25-26.
Best, S. (2009) “The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: Putting Theory into Action and
Animal Liberation into Higher Education,” Journal of Critical Animal Studies.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (2001), For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for
Creation Care, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 168-169
Boundy, K., (2008), “Are You Sure, Sweetheart, That You Want to Be Well?’: An
Exploration Of The Neurodiversity Movement,” Radical Psychology,
http://radicalpsychology.org/vol7-1/boundy.html.
The Boston Herald (2009), “Massachusetts survey: Bullies prey on children with
autism,” November 14, http://media-dis-ndat.blogspot.com/2009/11/massachusetts-survey-bullies-prey-on.html.
Buckner, E.D. (2003), The Immortality of Animals, ed., introduced, and annotated by
Pierce, R., The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, Queenston, and Lampeter
Courchesne, E., Yeung-Courchesne, R., “Hyperplasia of cerebellar vermal lobules VI
and VII in autism” (May 26, 1988), The New England Journal of Medicine,
abstract.
68
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Courchesne, E., Karns, C.M., Ziccardi, R., Carper R.A., Tigue, Z.D., Chisum, H.J.,
Moses, P., Pierce, K., Lord, C., Lincoln, A.J., Pizzo S., Schreibman L., Hass,
E.H., Akshoomoff, N.A., Courchesne, R.Y. (2001), “Unusual brain growth
patterns in early life in patients with autistic disorder: An MRI study,”
American Academy of Neurology,
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/2/245.
DeGraza, D. (2006) “On the Question of Personhood beyond Homo Sapiens” in
Singer, P. (Eds) In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 40-41.
Diament, M. (2009), “Government Report Confirms Abusive Seclusion, Restraint,”
disability scoop, May 19, http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2009/05/19/gaoreport/3288/.
Diament, M. (2010), “School Restraint, Seclusion Bill Clears House Committee,”
disability scoop, February 4,
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/02/04/restraint-bill-housecommitte/6902.
Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders: DSM IV, http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html,
2/6/2010.
Disability Social History Project, “Nazi, Eugenics, and the T-4 Program (1920-1950),
http://www.disabilityhistory.org/t4prog.html.
Dombrowski, D. (1997), Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases,
University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, pp. 1-7, 177-193.
Driver, The History of Utilitarianism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mar. 27,
2009.
Eisland, N. (1994), The Disabled God: Toward a Libratory Theology of Disability,
Abingdon Press, Nashville.
Frey, R.G. and Paton, Sir W. (1989) “Vivisection, Morals, and Medicine: An
Exchange,” Regan, T., Singer, P., (eds.), in Animal Rights and Human
Obligations-Second Edition, Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp.
4-5. pp. 231-235.
Grandin, T., Johnson, C. (2005), Animals In Translation: Using the Mysteries of
Autism to Decode Animal Behavior, Scribner, New York.
Greaves, R., Zaller, R., Cannistraro, P., Murphey, R., (1997), Civilizations Of The
World: The Human Adventure-Third Edition, Longman, New York.
Houston, R., and Frith, U., (2000), Autism in History: The Case Of Hugh Blair of
Borgue, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK.
69
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Johnson, M., (2003), Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve and
the Case Against Disability Rights, The Avocado Press, Inc.
Lakoff, G. (2004), don’t think of an elephant: Know Your Values and Frame The
Debate-The Essential Guide For Progressives Including Post-Election Updates,
Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont.
Lakoff G., Johnson M., (1980 2003), Metaphors We Live By, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 24.
Linzey, Rev. A. (2009), Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and
Practical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Inc., Oxford New York.
Linzey, Rev. A., (2000), Animal Gospel, Westminster John Know Press, Louisville,
Kentucky.
Little, L., “Middle-Class Mothers Perceptions Of Peer and Sibling Victimization
Among Children with Asperger’s Syndrome and Nonverbal Learning
Disorders,” (2002) Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, abstract.
Lonergan, B., (1957 1997 2000 2005), Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan: Insight,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Lonergan, B., (1971 1990 1994 1996 1999 2003), Method in Theology, University of
Toronto, Toronto.
McKim, D., (1996), Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Westminster John
Knox Press, Louisville.
Mitchell, S., Reiss, A., H. D., Tatusk, Ikuta, I., Kazmerski D., Botti, J., Burnette, C.
and Kates, W., (July 15, 2009) “Neuroantomic Alterations and Social and
Communication Deficits in Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Autism
Disorder,” American Journal of Psychiatry,
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/8/917.
Mostofsky, S., Powell, S., Simmons, D. Goldberg, M., Caffo, B., Pekas, J., (April 23,
2009), “Decreased connectivity and cerebellar activity in autism during motor
task performance,” Brian Advance Access,
http://brain.oxfordjournals,org/cgi/content/abstract/132/9/2413.
Matheny G., (2006), “Utilitarianism and Animals,” in Singer, P. (Eds), In Defense Of
Animals: The Second Wave, Blackwell Publishing, Malden MA, pp. 18-19.
Ner`eman, A., “Tell PETA to Stop Exploiting the Autistic Community (Got Autism
Billboard)” www.planet.net/article377.html.
Nussbaum M., (2006), Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species
Membership, Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Massachusetts, pp. Introduction, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7.
70
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Regan, T. (2004), The Case for Animal Rights, in Armstrong, S., and Botzler R. (Eds),
Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence, McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., New York NY, pp. 314-316.
Rachels, J., “Some Basic Points about Argumentation,” in Armstrong, S., and Botzler
R. (Eds.), Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence ed. McGrawHill Companies, Inc., New York NY, pp. 68-70.
Regan, T. (2006), Defending Animal Rights, University of Illinois, USA, pp. 59-60.
PETA, “Fishing Hurts,” (http://www.fishinghurts.hom/healthConcerns-Toxic.asp).
PETA, “Milk Causes Autism,” (http://www.peta.org/feat_autism.asp).
Pierce, R., Introduction in Buckner, E.D. (2003), The Immortality of Animals, ed.,
introduced, and annotated by Pierce, R., The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston,
Queenston, and Lampeter Courchesne, E., Yeung-Courchesne, R.,
“Hyperplasia of cerebellar vermal lobules VI and VII in autism” (May 26,
1988), The New England Journal of Medicine, abstract.
Prince-Hughes, D. (2004), Songs of the Gorilla Nation: My Journey through Autism,
Harmony Books, New York.
Sinclair, J., (1998) “A note about language and abbreviations used on this site,”
http//web.archive.org/web/20080606024118/web.syr.edu/~jisincla/language.ht
m.
Sinclair, J., (1998), “If you love something, you don’t kill it,”
http://web.archieve.org/web/20080330071836/web.syr.edu/~jisincla/killing.ht
m.
Sinclair, J., (1988), “Some Thoughts About Empathy,”
http://web.archive.org/web/20080625050027/web.syr.edu/~jisincla/empathy.h
tm.
Singer, P. (2004), “Equality for Animals?” in Armstrong, S., and Botzler R. (Eds),
Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence, McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., New York NY, pp. 323-330.
Singer, P. (ed.) (2006), In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, MA.
Shore, S. (2004), “The Autism Bomb,” in Klein, S. and Kemp J., Reflections from a
Different Journey: What Adults with Disabilities Wish All Parents Knew,
McGraw Hill, USA.
Waal, F., (1996), Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and
Other Animals, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
71
Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1/2, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X)
Webb, S. (1998), On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology Of Compassion For
Animals, Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
Wilson, M. “After Shooting Chimp, A Police Officer’s Descent,” New York Times,
February, 24, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/nyregion/25chimp.html).
Wixon, C. (2008) “Teacher lets Mourningside students vote out classmate, 5,” TC
PALM, May 24, http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/may/24/30gtteacher-letsstudents-vote-out-classmate-5/...
Wolfe, C., (Spring 2008), “Learning From Temple Grandin, Or, Animal Studies,
Disability Studies, and Who Comes After The Subject,” New Foundations, pp.
110.
72